Ron Pragides
@mrp • 9,763 subscribers
Led pre-IPO Eng teams: @Salesforce @Twitter @BigCommerce • Eager to build another great company.
Shorts
!["A Baked Alaska! […] Unfortunately they wouldn't let us light it here, even though that would have been very cool." Vlad Tenev $HOOD](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1986291635014279476/amplify_video_thumb/1986291564965171200/img/db5YWriHHzHY3KhN.jpg)
Videos
RO KHANNA IN 2024 WAS AGAINST TAXES ON UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS “Let me tell you why I don't think a blanket tax in unrealized gains is a good thing: Say you're an entrepreneur, create a company that gets to $100 million or $200 million on paper. After taxing that you're probably going to force that person to sell it. Probably going to sell it to private equity. Do you really want the entrepreneurs to be forced to sell their companies to larger institutions and to decline in value? I don't think that's what you want for a start-up… this is not the right way to do it and also 95% of investments in start-ups fail. You're going to disincentivize investments in those start-ups.“ Ro Khanna Rep. Ro Khanna ht Joe Kernen Becky Quick Andrew Ross Sorkin Squawk Box CNBC
Ron Pragides 1,313,890 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten
PETER NAVARRO ON ELON MUSK: “We all understand in the White House (and the American people understand) that Elon's a car manufacturer. But he's not a car manufacturer — He's a car assembler. In many cases, if you go to his Texas plant, a good part of the engines that he gets (which in the EV case are the batteries) come from Japan and come from China. The electronics come from Taiwan... what we want — and the difference is in our thinking and Elon's on this — is that we want the tires made in Akron. We want the transmissions made in Indianapolis. We want the engines made in Flint and Saginaw. And we want the cars manufactured here.” ht Peter Navarro Elon Musk Tesla
Ron Pragides 1,533,990 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
![SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2012558948130501004/amplify_video_thumb/2012557570549088256/img/tvspEgv_CJZyLczl.jpg)
SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
Ron Pragides 258,567 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten
![NEWSOM AGAINST WEALTH TAX IN CALIFORNIA “You can't isolate yourself from the 49 [other states]. We're in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury particularly people of that status. They already have two or three homes outside the state. It's a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it. Plus there's some simple questions that haven't been answered very simply is how the hell do you determine it? Is it you mark to market? Where's your asset base? How you make that determination in terms of just what the basic assessment is? We have one individual that represents one labor union in the state of California that has not collected one signature that is considering putting on the ballot after he collects signatures a wealth tax that the vast majority of labor opposes and almost everybody I know opposes. So it's not something to be panicked about, but it's part of the broader concern and narrative that's developed in this country of the halves and have nots, not just income inequality, but wealth inequality.… You go back, read an old Plutarch quote, two plus thousand years ago. Plutarch was warning the Athenians that the imbalance between the rich and the poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” Gavin Newsom Governor Gavin Newsom via Andrew Ross Sorkin DealBook The New York Times](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2004710044278161633/amplify_video_thumb/2004709781257531392/img/NubWlhE3Vb4BhKEj.jpg)
NEWSOM AGAINST WEALTH TAX IN CALIFORNIA “You can't isolate yourself from the 49 [other states]. We're in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury particularly people of that status. They already have two or three homes outside the state. It's a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it. Plus there's some simple questions that haven't been answered very simply is how the hell do you determine it? Is it you mark to market? Where's your asset base? How you make that determination in terms of just what the basic assessment is? We have one individual that represents one labor union in the state of California that has not collected one signature that is considering putting on the ballot after he collects signatures a wealth tax that the vast majority of labor opposes and almost everybody I know opposes. So it's not something to be panicked about, but it's part of the broader concern and narrative that's developed in this country of the halves and have nots, not just income inequality, but wealth inequality.… You go back, read an old Plutarch quote, two plus thousand years ago. Plutarch was warning the Athenians that the imbalance between the rich and the poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” Gavin Newsom Governor Gavin Newsom via Andrew Ross Sorkin DealBook The New York Times
Ron Pragides 250,393 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten
1:07
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
WARREN BUFFETT ON THE U.S. BUDGET DEFICIT "We still have very substantial inflation in the United States, but it's never been runaway…yet. And that's not something we want to try and experiment with, because it feeds on itself. I wouldn't want the job of trying to correct what's going on in revenue & expenditures of the United States — with roughly a 7% gap, when probably a 3% gap is sustainable. And the further away you get from that, the more you get to where the uncontrollable begins… It's a job I don't want, but it's a job I think should be done — and Congress does not seem good at doing it." Warren Buffett BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 2025
Ron Pragides 496,791 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
![DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1978315666563481843/amplify_video_thumb/1978314444964081664/img/u-TzPxqWHR9NzEIl.jpg)
DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce
Ron Pragides 231,781 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten
![Chamath Palihapitiya "…so iPhones can be $9000? Leave that job in China where it belongs […] I want to wear Nikes, I don't want to make them" DAVE CHAPELLE](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1908230895045402720/ext_tw_video_thumb/1908230564215398400/pu/img/Oub94V5NlABAQthO.jpg)
0:51
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
![MARÍA CORINA MACHADO ON A POST-MADURO VENEZUELA “Venezuela is for me the country with the largest opportunities, not only for the United States [but] the rest of the West… I'm not talking about our natural endowments, which are huge. We'll already address that, or infrastructure or even our geographical position. It's our people, what we have endured, and the way we have come together. And I've heard recently some people talking about: that once Maduro goes out (because he will leave soon) there's this risk of civil war or unrest. Give me a break. We're talking about a country where 90% of the population, we all want the same. There are no religious differences. There are no racial tensions, no social or political differences. We all want the same. And we have fought so hard for freedom that we are the ones who are guaranteed that this will be an orderly transition. And yes, we are close to the United States values and culture. Yes, we are. We admire a nation that has strong democratic institutions; that feel proud for their achievements, their history, their legacy. And so are we. So look, those kind of socialist rhetoric nowadays is useless in Venezuela. You know, we have only known socialism. And Venezuela today is a country I believe that most people embrace open markets, respect for private property, merit and collaboration.” María Corina Machado, awarded 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her non-violent struggle to restore democracy in Venezuela (ht The Nobel Prize david friedberg The All-In Podcast)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2007542593387991205/amplify_video_thumb/2007542413078806528/img/uzIe9CXZj5LjzyPE.jpg)
MARÍA CORINA MACHADO ON A POST-MADURO VENEZUELA “Venezuela is for me the country with the largest opportunities, not only for the United States [but] the rest of the West… I'm not talking about our natural endowments, which are huge. We'll already address that, or infrastructure or even our geographical position. It's our people, what we have endured, and the way we have come together. And I've heard recently some people talking about: that once Maduro goes out (because he will leave soon) there's this risk of civil war or unrest. Give me a break. We're talking about a country where 90% of the population, we all want the same. There are no religious differences. There are no racial tensions, no social or political differences. We all want the same. And we have fought so hard for freedom that we are the ones who are guaranteed that this will be an orderly transition. And yes, we are close to the United States values and culture. Yes, we are. We admire a nation that has strong democratic institutions; that feel proud for their achievements, their history, their legacy. And so are we. So look, those kind of socialist rhetoric nowadays is useless in Venezuela. You know, we have only known socialism. And Venezuela today is a country I believe that most people embrace open markets, respect for private property, merit and collaboration.” María Corina Machado, awarded 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her non-violent struggle to restore democracy in Venezuela (ht The Nobel Prize david friedberg The All-In Podcast)
Ron Pragides 66,466 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten
“I mean, tariffs are actually — we’ve had a lot of experience with them — they’re an act of war, to some degree… Over time, they’re a tax on goods. I mean, you know, the Tooth Fairy doesn’t pay them. You always have to just: ‘…and then what?’ You always have to ask that question in economics” Warren Buffett
Ron Pragides 47,270 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
![SHOULD SAN FRANCISCO KEEP PROP C? WEISENTHAL: Should San Francisco keep Prop C? So I understand that on big companies with revenue of over $50 million, that there's this tiny gross revenue tax. Some speculate, though it's not confirmed, I don't know if they've said it, but that is one reason that Stripe does not have its headquarters in San Francisco. Should that be revisited so as to bring more corporate activity into the city itself? LURIE: What I've always said is that we need to be competitive on the tax front. We're out of whack with San Jose and Santa Clara County. Actually, every candidate for mayor last year supported what was called Prop M, which kind of realigned our tax structure [and] got it more competitive.That was an important step for our city. I think it signaled to everybody that we were serious about being in the ballpark — I think we probably still have more work to do. But the thing that I think companies really look at is the quality of life and they look at the street conditions, they look at public safety. I think that is without question the most important thing. And they are seeing that they have a mayor that is delivering on that front, that I am focused on creating the conditions so that they can succeed. Joe Weisenthal Bloomberg Podcasts #OddLots Daniel Lurie 丹尼爾·羅偉 City of San Francisco](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1985516146809004499/amplify_video_thumb/1985515906894802944/img/hSLiF54uMVD0lVIT.jpg)
SHOULD SAN FRANCISCO KEEP PROP C? WEISENTHAL: Should San Francisco keep Prop C? So I understand that on big companies with revenue of over $50 million, that there's this tiny gross revenue tax. Some speculate, though it's not confirmed, I don't know if they've said it, but that is one reason that Stripe does not have its headquarters in San Francisco. Should that be revisited so as to bring more corporate activity into the city itself? LURIE: What I've always said is that we need to be competitive on the tax front. We're out of whack with San Jose and Santa Clara County. Actually, every candidate for mayor last year supported what was called Prop M, which kind of realigned our tax structure [and] got it more competitive.That was an important step for our city. I think it signaled to everybody that we were serious about being in the ballpark — I think we probably still have more work to do. But the thing that I think companies really look at is the quality of life and they look at the street conditions, they look at public safety. I think that is without question the most important thing. And they are seeing that they have a mayor that is delivering on that front, that I am focused on creating the conditions so that they can succeed. Joe Weisenthal Bloomberg Podcasts #OddLots Daniel Lurie 丹尼爾·羅偉 City of San Francisco
Ron Pragides 17,458 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten
![“Since the pandemic what's been on my mind a lot living still in San Francisco: I wanted to start a social network called ‘Still Here’ (Oh, you still live here? Me too!) — some way for us to come out of our houses and notice that you're here & I'm here but we never leave our homes. I walk around this city (at my own risk)… I feel like cities have lost the point; like they've lost the plot. We still live in cities or value them, but I feel we have to go back to first principles and think: ‘Why did we move to cities in the first place, and what was the value supposed to be? And is that still the deal we're getting, or does there have to be a new deal?’ We used to live in a city because it was economic: we were closer to our job. And then we lived in a city because there was a high density of things that we wanted: cultural [attractions], people, restaurants. And the best cities really were the ones that are fun to walk around. Then we got to a point where it's not safe or clean to walk around, you don't work in the city anymore, and San Francisco started to feel like this gigantic retirement community. It's just all these people who still live here because their kids are in school maybe, or they grew up here… I think our family has a conversation probably twice a year of: ‘Should we move? Why haven't we moved? What's wrong with us?’ And so there's this questioning going on around cities, and I think it's a good question. I think cities need to innovate aggressively to be better. They have to compete with the other options again. They have to make it fun to be there, fun to work there. I think it's great that Daniel Lurie 丹尼爾·羅偉 is mayor of San Francisco and he's putting smart people around him. And they're trying to rethink, first: some of attacking these core problems, but also how do we make San Francisco fun again.” mark pincus - e/acc](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1880679392835473911/amplify_video_thumb/1880679121321418752/img/m4fve1iYhpgHnCni.jpg)
“Since the pandemic what's been on my mind a lot living still in San Francisco: I wanted to start a social network called ‘Still Here’ (Oh, you still live here? Me too!) — some way for us to come out of our houses and notice that you're here & I'm here but we never leave our homes. I walk around this city (at my own risk)… I feel like cities have lost the point; like they've lost the plot. We still live in cities or value them, but I feel we have to go back to first principles and think: ‘Why did we move to cities in the first place, and what was the value supposed to be? And is that still the deal we're getting, or does there have to be a new deal?’ We used to live in a city because it was economic: we were closer to our job. And then we lived in a city because there was a high density of things that we wanted: cultural [attractions], people, restaurants. And the best cities really were the ones that are fun to walk around. Then we got to a point where it's not safe or clean to walk around, you don't work in the city anymore, and San Francisco started to feel like this gigantic retirement community. It's just all these people who still live here because their kids are in school maybe, or they grew up here… I think our family has a conversation probably twice a year of: ‘Should we move? Why haven't we moved? What's wrong with us?’ And so there's this questioning going on around cities, and I think it's a good question. I think cities need to innovate aggressively to be better. They have to compete with the other options again. They have to make it fun to be there, fun to work there. I think it's great that Daniel Lurie 丹尼爾·羅偉 is mayor of San Francisco and he's putting smart people around him. And they're trying to rethink, first: some of attacking these core problems, but also how do we make San Francisco fun again.” mark pincus - e/acc
Ron Pragides 31,360 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
“CANADA WILL NEVER BE FOR SALE” CARNEY: As you know, from real estate, there will be some places that will never be on sale. We’re sitting in one right now. You know Buckingham Palace, which you’ve visited as well. And having met with the owners of Canada, in the course of the campaign the last several months, it’s not for sale — won’t be for sale, ever. TRUMP: …but never say “never” CARNEY: (sotto voce) Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. Mark Carney Prime Minister of Canada 🇨🇦 Donald J. Trump President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸
Ron Pragides 19,180 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar